🚀 go-pugleaf

mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) writes:
>In article <2524@umd5.umd.edu> spier@umd5.umd.edu (Lori Spier) writes:
><TITLE: Assembly Source Level Collection for the Amiga
>
>[I'm about to flame a bit. You may wish to skip from here on down.]
>
>I don't agree that it's as easy to write C as to write in an assembler
>you know well. I've been writing 68K assembler since '84, and I still
>can't write it as fast as I can write C (Ok, I'll admit I've been
>writing C since '79). The main reason isn't that the assembler is
>harder to deal with - that's true for some machines, but not the 68K -
>it's that I have to write significantly more english around the code
>to bring the level of readability of assembler up to what I get when I
>write C.
>

        Seems to me that you should:


                A) get a better assembler.  As I understand it there are
                      several.

                B) use macro's.

        A well constructed library of routines and macros should be almost
      as easy to use as C, and in alot of cases easier.  Seems to me that
      what we all really need is an extensive, well written library of
      such routines and macros.

        Also, uncommented C (which is just about all I C :^) is not much 
      more readable than assembler, and assembler programmers are *much*
      more likely to comment there code carefully for there own needs.
      (My macros comment themselves).  If you want readablility, try 
      Modula-2.


                                                        Thanks,


                                                                Wade.

UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM